There was much anticipation, but no conclusion, to Toronto’s casino debate on Wednesday.
Chatter has been rampant at City Hall ever since the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation announced last month it wants to build a licensed gambling facility somewhere in the GTA. On the second day of this week’s council session however, councillors voted to defer two decisions on new gambling houses, sending both to the mayor’s executive committee for further consideration.
One motion, introduced by Councillor Adam Vaughan, would have bound the city to hold an election-time referendum before building its first permanent casino, and a separate motion introduced by Councillor Mike Layton would have prohibited one on the site of the now-defunct Ontario Place.
Neither motion received the two-thirds majority approval needed to bypass the committee process and go straight to council, and both will now be considered by Ford’s powerful executive as early as next Monday.
Despite failing to bring his motion before council, Vaughan was happy with the result because he believes it will force the mayor and his allies to take a position on the controversial issue.
“It’s good that it goes off to executive. We need to get people on the record on this. Are they for or against a casino in this city?” he said.
In the past, Ford has suggested casinos have economic benefits but he wouldn’t oppose a referendum.
Vaughan believes that the votes on both motions, particularly the 22-20 majority on Layton’s Ontario Place proposal, indicate that there’s little support at City Hall for a permanent gaming facility, especially on the waterfront. Councillors voted by a wider margin, 25-17, to refer Vaughan’s motion.
“What’s clear about today’s vote is the majority of councillors are very ambivalent about casinos,” he said, adding that conversations he’s had with his council colleagues lead him to believe most oppose the idea.
Toronto has held a referendum on casinos before. In 1997, voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea, and Vaughan says there’s no reason to believe anything has changed since. He says a referendum would be a waste of money, and hopes council drops the issue before it comes to that.
But some members of Ford’s executive say a casino remains a viable option to generate much-needed revenue and jobs, and are promising that Ontario Place will be one of the sites the committee considers.
“If you put [a casino] by the water, you’d have all that action with the boats. You’d have boats coming up from New York and it would be a completely different atmosphere down there,” said Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, one of Ford’s closest allies.
Mammoliti also identified the Woodbine Racetrack and the airport region as potential sites for a casino. He’s currently polling residents in his ward (York West) to see if they would support gambling site in their area if it brought in enough money to freeze their property taxes.
He estimates that there is a “50-50 split” among Torontonians over the issue, but maintains the social ills associated with gambling are being exaggerated by casino opponents in order to scare the public. Vaughan’s motion cited increased suicide, prostitution, and organized crime as among the reasons to think twice before bringing a bit of Vegas to Toronto the Good.
“I think it’s just another way to fear monger,” Mammoliti told reporters Wednesday. “The reality is, talk about the thousands of jobs that would be created and talk about the economic boost for the city of Toronto.”
He says that judging by the Windsor casino’s 6,000 employees, a similar facility here could employ 12,000 people.
Mammoliti doesn’t want to wait until the next election in 2014 to hold a referendum, and neither does Councillor Michael Thompson, another member of Ford’s executive. On Tuesday he told media that Torontonians should vote on the issue this fall, and the tab for the referendum, which Vaughan pegs at $7 million, should be picked up by the province.
“What we need to do is be able to have the facts. What are the benefits, what are the negative implications, the social costs? All of those things have to be factored in, and people then should be given the information so they can actually make an informed decision as part of a referendum,” said Thompson, who also serves as chair of the economic development committee.
“What I’d like to see is that this particular matter be dealt with now.”
